Section 1660d removes flexibility that the Department of Workforce Development currently has to manage resources for the Wisconsin Works (W-2) program, by prohibiting the department from transferring funds initially allocated for cash benefits to pay for costs associated with providing direct services to W-2 participants and administration of the W-2 program.
Section 1660d also stipulates that funding provided under a W-2 contract could not be expended by a W-2 agency for public relations activities, unless those activities are directly related to providing community outreach and informing participants about the services available under the W-2 program.
I object to this provision because it prevents the department from reallocating resources to the areas where they may be most needed, in order to manage the W-2 program efficiently and serve W-2 participants effectively. In addition, the prohibition on public relations spending is duplicative of federal law; the department currently administers a test to determine whether a W-2 agency's public relations activities conform to federal regulations. Further, it is unclear what activities constitute "community outreach," as the term is not defined.
S339
I am vetoing section 1660d in its entirety, and partially vetoing section 9358 (8c), as it relates to s.
49.143 (2g), thereby maintaining current law. This will ensure that the department has the management tools necessary to administer the W-2 program efficiently and effectively.
45.
Review of Expenditures and Reallocations
Sections 255p, 1716m, 1716o, 1716q, 1716s, 1716v and 1718
These sections eliminate the Department of Workforce Development's current authority to transfer funds from one allocation to another allocation under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program [under s.
49.175 (1)] with approval from the Department of Administration secretary. Instead, these provisions stipulate that the department must meet certain requirements and obtain approval from both the Department of Administration secretary and the Joint Committee on Finance in order to reallocate funds under the TANF program. In addition, the department would be required to report annually to the Department of Administration secretary and the co-chairs of the Joint Committee on Finance on TANF expenditures for the previous fiscal year.
The transfer authority, which exists under current law, allows the department flexibility in making adjustments to its public assistance allocations, which are funded primarily with GPR and the federal TANF block grant. This flexibility is necessary in maintaining the department's ability to manage and respond to needed changes in the Wisconsin Works (W-2) program.
I am vetoing all of the new requirements concerning reallocation of funds, so that the department will retain the flexibility to reallocate resources as needed in order to administer the program efficiently and serve W-2 participants effectively. As with current practice, I direct the department to not request any reallocation that transfers more than ten percent from one allocation to another. I would be willing to support separate legislation to restore Joint Committee on Finance review of any transfer greater than ten percent.
I am also vetoing the requirement that the department submit annual reports on TANF expenditures to the Department of Administration secretary and the co-chairs of the Joint Committee on Finance, because I believe that it is unnecessary to require the report in statute. However, I do feel that such a report would provide useful information; therefore, I am directing the department to submit an annual report to the Department of Administration secretary on TANF expenditures for the previous fiscal year.
46.
W-2 Contingency Fund
Section 961r
This section creates an appropriation for the Joint Committee on Finance to supplement appropriations for cash benefits for Wisconsin Works (W-2) participants, child care benefits, and kinship care and long-term kinship care benefits.
While I do not object to the contingency fund itself, I disagree with the purposes for which the fund may be used, as specified in the bill. Historically, the intent of the W-2 contingency fund was for cash assistance payments only, as a safeguard against times of economic downturn and increased caseloads.
The bill removes over $12,000,000 associated with community reinvestment funds from the 1997-99 W-2 contracts, some of which was held by W-2 agencies as their own contingency funds. Further, as a means of fully funding the anticipated costs of the Wisconsin Shares child care subsidy program, the Legislature modified funding in the W-2 contracts from what my proposed budget included, by reducing funds for direct services and administration and by providing no increase for cash benefits. Given these reductions to the W-2 contracts and the loss of community reinvestment dollars for W-2 agencies, it would seem prudent to provide the contingency fund for the purpose that W-2 agencies suggest it would be most needed, namely, cash benefits.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove child care benefits and kinship care and long-term kinship care benefits as eligible uses for the W-2 contingency fund, in order to reserve the fund for the purpose for which it is most needed.
47.
Changes to W-2 Geographical Regions in Milwaukee County
Section 1660g
This section requires the Department of Workforce Development to consult with the Milwaukee County Department of Human Services prior to implementing any changes to the Wisconsin Works (W-2) geographic regions in Milwaukee County. The department would also be required to hold at least one public hearing in each of the Milwaukee W-2 regions that would be affected by any proposed change.
I object to this provision because it is unnecessary for the Legislature to add this type of requirement to the statutes. The department will solicit feedback and input from all affected parties on any plans to change the geographic regions in Milwaukee County.
I am vetoing this section to maintain current law.
48.
Performance Bonuses and Performance Standards for W-2 Agencies
Sections 9158 (9e) (b) and 9158 (9e) (d)
Section 9158 (9e) (b) specifies in session law the amount that the Department of Workforce Development would be required to include in Wisconsin Works (W-2) contracts for performance bonuses for W-2 agencies that meet performance benchmarks, based on criteria established by the department. Section 9158 (9e) (d) codifies in session law several performance standards that the department would be required to include in W-2 contracts. The standards would be used to determine whether a W-2 agency meets benchmarks for base contract terms, restricted and unrestricted bonuses and renewal of contracts under the right-of-first selection option.
S340
I object to specifying in law the amount the department must build into contracts for bonuses, because such a requirement would prohibit the department from adjusting performance bonuses, which may become appropriate as the program changes.
While I support the use of performance standards in the decision-making process, I object to including specific performance standards in law. The department already includes several performance criteria in the contracts with W-2 agencies. Further, I believe the department should have the flexibility to adjust benchmarks and change standards as the W-2 program evolves.
I am vetoing sections 9158 (9e) (b) and 9158 (9e) (d) in their entirety. This will allow the department to set standards, measure the performance of W-2 agencies and award bonuses to W-2 agencies as the department deems appropriate. More generally, it will provide the department with the flexibility it requires to administer the W-2 program effectively.
49.
Oversight of W-2 Agencies in Milwaukee County
Section 1660e
This section requires the department to provide certain oversight and coordination services for Wisconsin Works (W-2) agencies in Milwaukee County. Specifically, the Department of Workforce Development would be required to monitor compliance with W-2 contracts, provide technical assistance to W-2 agencies and assist in coordination among those agencies for services offered to W-2 participants in Milwaukee County.
Currently, the Milwaukee Private Industry Council (PIC) receives $1,000,000 annually to provide these functions for Milwaukee W-2 agencies. In my proposed budget, I reduced funding for the Milwaukee PIC by $500,000 each year, with the idea that while this function is valuable, it could be performed at a lower cost. The Legislature removed all funding for the Milwaukee PIC and specified in the budget bill that the department conduct these oversight and coordination activities.
While I believe that these oversight and coordination activities are important, I object to specifying in statute that the department itself must be responsible for performing this function.
I am vetoing this section, but I also am directing the department to either conduct the oversight and coordination activities itself, or contract with a provider to perform this valuable function for Milwaukee W-2 agencies.
50.
Community Youth Grants
Sections 1700b and 9158 (8x)
Section 1700b allocates an additional $500,000 each fiscal year in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funding above what my budget provided for community youth grants. Section 9158 (8x) specifically earmarks the $500,000 in each fiscal year for grants to the Wisconsin Chapters of the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.
Community youth grants are administered by the Department of Workforce Development and are generally awarded on a competitive basis. The grants are intended to fund programs that improve the social, academic and employment skills of youth who are eligible to receive TANF benefits. For this reason, I do not object to providing some funding for grants to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. However, I do not agree with earmarking such a large portion of what is essentially a competitive grant program for one organization. Further, the TANF fund is constrained by several spending pressures at this time and cannot support excessive spending on additional programs.
I am partially vetoing the amount earmarked for the Wisconsin Chapter of Boys and Girls Clubs of America in each fiscal year of the 2001-03 biennium, so as to reduce the amount from $500,000 to $50,000 in each fiscal year. I am also partially vetoing the amount allocated for community youth grants in fiscal year 2002-03 so as to reduce the amount from $500,000 to $50,000. Further, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place $450,000 into unallotted reserve in appropriation s.
20.445 (3) (md) in 2002-
03. This veto will have the effect of providing $50,000 in each fiscal year specifically for grants to the Wisconsin Chapter of Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and of adding $450,000 in fiscal year 2002-03 to the TANF balance.
51.
After-School Care Grant Program
These sections allocate $150,000 of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant funding for transfer from the Department of Workforce Development to a newly created appropriation in the Department of Public Instruction, for an after-school care grant program beginning in fiscal year 2002-03. Under this new grant program, school boards would be able to apply to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to fund an after-school care program for TANF-eligible children who would otherwise be unsupervised by an adult in the afternoon after school.
S341
I believe that children who would normally be unsupervised after school hours would benefit from a program like this; thus, I do not object to the idea of the program itself. However, the TANF fund is currently constrained by several spending pressures, ranging from cash assistance, to education and job skills training, and other work supports, especially child care benefits. While providing after-school care for all children is a worthwhile goal, the TANF fund cannot support spending on additional programs at this time.
I am vetoing this section to delete this new grant program, in order to conserve resources for the many important programs that are currently supported with TANF funds. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place these funds into unallotted reserve in s.
20.445 (3) (md).
52.
Study of Unclaimed Impounded Vehicles
Section 9158 (3f)
This section requires the Department of Workforce Development, in consultation with the Department of Transportation and local governmental entities, to conduct a study of the feasibility of a program that would provide or sell unclaimed impounded vehicles to low-income individuals at below-market prices. The departments would be required to submit the findings of the study to the Joint Committee on Finance and other appropriate standing committees by June 30, 2002. The Legislature provided no funding to the Department of Workforce Development to conduct the study.
I object to this provision, because, while the study may produce valuable information, it is not one of the department's priorities for use of its base resources.
I am vetoing this section to remove the requirement that the department conduct this study.
53.
Prevailing Wage Law
Sections 2026nz, 2026p, 2026r, 2558i, 2558j, 2558m, 2559d and 9458 (3z)
These sections affect the prevailing wage law, which requires workers employed on state or local public works projects to be paid the prevailing wage, as determined by the Department of Workforce Development, for the worker's trade or occupation in the area where the project is located. Specifically, these provisions would: (a) include wage data from public works projects where the wage paid is higher than the current prevailing wage in the annual wage rate survey; (b) require contractors and subcontractors to allow any individual to have access to their payroll records for projects subject to prevailing wage law to the same extent as if those records were public documents subject to the open records law; (c) prohibit the department from establishing swimming pool installer as a separate job classification; and (d) require the department to modify the metal building assembler job classification to include work on prefabricated, packaged metal buildings among the duties of that job classification.
I am vetoing sections 2026p and 2558j because including public works projects in the annual wage rate survey would violate the principles on which prevailing wage laws are based. Prevailing wage laws are intended to ensure that workers on public building projects are paid wages comparable to wages paid by the private sector for similar work. Including public construction projects when computing the prevailing wage rate would artificially inflate the prevailing wage rate for the county.
Sections 2026r, 2558m and 2559d require contractors and subcontractors to allow access to their payroll records for projects subject to prevailing wage laws. Under current law, if an individual has questions regarding a contractor's records for a public building project, that individual may request the department to examine the payroll records. Following the investigation, the payroll records become public documents and may be examined by any individual. I am vetoing these provisions because allowing any individual to obtain payroll records directly from contractors would create an unnecessary burden on private employers. If individuals wish to obtain these documents, they need only to file a request with the department.
Current law gives the department the power to establish prevailing wage rate job classifications and the power to establish the prevailing wage for those job classifications. Sections 2026nz, 2558j and 9458(3z) would require the department to modify the metal building erector job classification and prohibit the department from establishing a swimming pool installer job classification. I am vetoing these provisions because the statutes should not be used to modify the job classifications of selected occupations. If an individual or organization would like to create, delete or modify a job classification, then that individual or organization can file a request with the department. The department will then seek comment from individuals and organizations that would be affected by the change. It is inappropriate to include these changes through a process that does not allow the people and businesses who will be affected a chance to comment on the proposed change. I am sensitive to concerns about how prevailing wage data are calculated, and I encourage the department to review and evaluate its methodology for computing the prevailing wage rate.
54.
Grant to the Milwaukee Metropolitan Fair Housing Council – Discriminatory Lending Practices
Section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.445 (1) (a)] provides $150,000 GPR for the Department of Workforce Development to award a grant to the Milwaukee Metropolitan Fair Housing Council for the investigation of predatory residential real estate lending practices in Milwaukee County. As a condition of receiving these funds, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Fair Housing Council would be required to submit a report evaluating the results of the investigation to the department by January 1, 2004.
By lining out the department's s.
20.445 (1) (a) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $150,000 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. Furthermore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
S342
I object to this provision because it is more appropriate to select an organization to conduct the study through an open and objective process rather than through targeted legislation. This is also an issue that may be better served by a broader review that involves significant input from policy experts, lenders, homebuyers and the general public. In addition, it has not been demonstrated that the council lacks the resources to internally fund a study. My veto is not intended to reflect on the quality of work and level of commitment to fair housing of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Fair Housing Council.
D.
JUSTICE
CIRCUIT COURT
Family Court Counseling Fee
Sections 3832k and 9309 (4w)
These provisions increase the family court counseling service fee for custody and physical placement studies from $300 to $500. A court may order these studies when a custody or placement case has been contested.
I am vetoing these provisions because the fee increase is excessive, has not been justified and may inhibit involved parties from exploring their full range of legal options. The effect of this veto is to retain current law.
2.
Admitting Health Care Records into Evidence in a Trial or Proceeding
Sections 3872v and 9309 (7p)
This provision reduces the time period during which a party must either serve health care records or notify the other parties of the location where records can be inspected or photocopied from forty days to twenty days in order for the health records to be admitted into evidence at trial without testimony by the custodian of the records.
I am vetoing this provision because the change in the time period has not been justified and is unreasonable.
3.
Civil Action for Domestic Abuse or Sexual Assault
Section 3871x
This provision provides that any person, who suffers damage as the result of intentional conduct that constitutes sexual assault or as a result of domestic abuse, has a cause of action against the person who causes the damage.
I am vetoing this provision because the definition of who has a cause of action is very broad and due to its complexity this issue should be addressed in separate legislation. Further, language pertaining to domestic abuse restitution has been included in the budget to provide victims of domestic abuse broader legal avenues to address this problem.
CORRECTIONS
4.
Telemarketing and Data Entry
Sections 3325q and 9311 (7k)
These provisions specify that the Department of Corrections may not enter into a contract or other agreement if, in the performance of the agreement, a prisoner would perform data entry or telemarketing services and would have access to any personal identifying information of an individual who is not a prisoner. Personal identifying information is defined in s.
943.201 as a name, address, telephone number, driver's license number, social security number, employer or place of employment, employer identification number, mother's maiden name, or identifying number of a depository account.
I am vetoing these provisions to retain the current programs. These programs have many procedures in place to prohibit inmate access to social security numbers, financial data and information that could serve to identify a juvenile.
Inmates currently employed in the telemarketing program make calls to previous donors on behalf of charities that have contracted with the Department of Corrections. The inmates inquire as to whether the donor is interested in donating again. The response is forwarded to the charity, who follows up with the donor if interest in donating is expressed. Inmates identify themselves and receive no personal information during the call.
Inmates employed in the data entry program are able to enter data into a computer, but are not able to retrieve data. Careful screening is conducted to ensure inmates with a propensity for committing a financial crime involving personal identifying information would not be hired. Inmates are prohibited from having access to social security numbers, credit card numbers, other financial data and information that would identify a juvenile. Verifiers conduct random checks of entered data and can identify who entered data for any record, and inmates are searched each day to make sure no information is taken with them.
Elimination of these programs will reduce the department's ability to provide meaningful work experience to inmates and result in increased inmate idleness. Inmates are carefully screened prior to being selected for the programs and are closely monitored while they are employed. The personal privacy of the general public is not being compromised under current law. Inmates involved in these programs have access to no more information than is readily available in a telephone book.
5.
Residence of Sex Offenders on Parole or Extended Supervision
Sections 3329m, 3354g, 3354r, 3357m, 3385r, 3389m, 3389p, 3389q, 3389r, 3389s, 3389t, 3389u, 3389v, 3389w, 3389x and 3389y
These provisions require serious sex offenders to live in a residence approved by the Department of Corrections or the Parole Commission as a condition of extended supervision or parole. They also require the department and the Parole Commission to work cooperatively to minimize the residential population density of sex offenders who are on probation, parole, extended supervision or placed on supervised release as a sexually violent person.
S343
I am partially vetoing these provisions because they would limit the department's ability to provide effective offender treatment and community protection. I am vetoing all provisions that relate to the Department of Corrections' utilizing specific criteria when placing sex offenders because these provisions are already in administrative rule or are part of internal departmental procedures. I am vetoing the provision that would require agreement of the sex offender before the department could place the offender in an approved residence because it would limit the department's ability to provide treatment to the offender and compromise the department's ability to ensure community protection. I am vetoing the Parole Commission from the requirement to minimize the residential density of sex offenders because the Division of Community Corrections is responsible for coordinating the placement of offenders in the community.
The effect of this veto will be to require the Department of Corrections to minimize the density of sex offender residential populations while leaving the department with the flexibility needed to make appropriate placements.
6.
Inmate Rehabilitation and Aftercare
Section 3333j
This provision would allow the Department of Corrections to permit one or more community-based organizations to operate an inmate rehabilitation program in any departmental facility. As part of this provision, organizations seeking to operate such a facility would need to submit a detailed proposal, the department would be required to establish policies providing organizations with reasonable access to inmates, the department would be required to evaluate the program and contractors would be allowed to terminate an inmate's participation in the program.
